[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1197579066.15741.167.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:51:06 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Possible issue with dangling PCI BARs
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 12:04 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> Yeah, that seems like a reasonable compromise. Though in practice
> I'd
> expect the full disable decode approach to work fairly well too. I
> mean, if we really end up failing to allocate space for the device
> with
> the root drive on it, there are probably bigger issues than just
> failing to get a few bytes of I/O space for it...
>
The really bad scenario would be something like the Sil680 that Alan
talked about setup by a BIOS that "knows" about the unused BAR when
MMIO_EN is not set.
If the device is behind a P2P bridge and the BIOS has set the windows of
that bridge so tightly that there is no room to allocate the MMIO BAR,
then a full disable/full enable would fail on a device that would
otherwise work using only PIO.
However, I'd be curious to see that happening in practice :-)
But I think it's fair enough to do an IO only / MEM only approach. I've
seen cases where IO is just not useable because of other constraints and
so I expect the MEM-only case to be more common, especially on non-x86.
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists